Reply With Quote
Actually was addressing Parker with my "still waiting" post. Parker has, in my experience, a reputation for ringing doorbells and running away, you... don't.
The federal debacle is exactly how UCA and capitalists want to be. They know how to manipulate the federal (any) govt to extract the maximum benefits and revenue, which of course comes from taxpayers
They absolutely don't want any countervailing power for the govt, which is the only source with the potential to be a countervailing power.
Actually was addressing Parker with my "still waiting" post. Parker has, in my experience, a reputation for ringing doorbells and running away, you... don't.
lol
This is meaningless drivel. What specific changes would you make?
"false " ... whatever. All I remember is that your stance was a bit vague.
Anyhoo, now that we have some specifics, let's see what we have:
This is the kind of thing that screams "unintended consequences" and "hand-wavy generalities" to me.Limit discovery.
Limit appeals.
No more ten and 15 year "last man standing" litigation.
No more burying the little guy in discovery requests, causing them to fold early.
No more judicial findings that corps interests outwiegh those of the individual.
Personally I don't find the "respect due process" and "limit discovery/appeals" to be fully compatable, but, let's assume it is and see where this all goes.
Let's go on to the first bit, about limiting discovery, and come back to limiting appeals later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
http://joselermalaw.com/content/civil-litigation
http://www.justicejournalism.org/cri...er09_pg04.html
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/pubs/med...vil-cases.html
The rather expensive process actually motivates a lot of companies to seek a comprimise settlement for small cases, as the cost of discovery itself can cost more than the damages sought.
We can probably assume that reducing dicovery will cause more cases to go to court. Not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, I would guess.
It is also safe to assume that if one limits discovery, and you are suing a rather large corporation, it seems safe to say the chances of missing something important to your case go up, as they can play the s game with information.
How exactly do you limit discovery, but still allow the chance for a wronged property holder to complel a defendant to fork over needed do entation, Parker?
limiting discovery would help polluters and over plaintiffs.
Heh, you beat me to it.
I don't think Parker has the legal expertise to really flesh it out. Not saying that as a knock on Parker. He isn't a lawyer.
Hopefully he can research it a bit to find something specific, but I won't hold my breath.
Personally I think it is just something he heard and found emotionally appealing without doing any critical thinking, as a lot of things do to young people.
How exactly?
I suspect it would have some unintended consequences, but would be hard pressed to say exactly why. This is your baliwhack, so have at it, I would like the chance to learn something today on my lunch hour.
Plaintiffs have the burden of proof at trial. Their interest is in obtaining info from the defendant. If you limit discovery - meaning make it harder to get info from the other side - you'd make it easier for a corporation to sit on the information it has.How exactly?
I suspect it would have some unintended consequences, but would be hard pressed to say exactly why. This is your baliwhack, so have at it, I would like the chance to learn something today on my lunch hour.
If a corporate polluter really damaged the environment, limiting discovery (i.e., decreasing the number of RFPs/interrogatories, limiting the number and length of depositions, whatever) would make it easier for said polluter to restrict access to information which would help a plaintiff prove its cause of action.
If anything, Parker should be arguing for added-incentives to the legal system. One example could be mandatory awards of treble damages given to plaintiffs who succeed in bringing an environmental claim against a corporate polluter. Or you could set minimum thresholds for awards of fees and costs to make sure that a prevailing plaintiff is not out of pocket for anything in suing a corporate polluter. Another thing could be to force all corporations held liable for pollution to contribute to a legal defense fund that could help subsidize other lawsuits.
But all that isn't nearly as fun as saying dumb and posting Ron Paul videos, now is it?
The obvious rejoinder is the case of corporations that go out of business or bankrupt.
What is to stop a company from making products cheaply by dumping pollution in a way that is hidden for 10-20 years, issuing dividends to the owners who cash out and then wind down the corporation?
Or just simply creating a few s companies to do something similar? With no government oversight, you are forced to wait until *after* the damage is really done, sometimes decades after, as we find out occasionally even now.
I dunno, I'm open to what works, but I just don't think the "scrap all governmental oversight and stick to simple lawsuits" is really all that workable. Some of what you brought up does seem fair.
Was this supposed to be a criticism of what I wrote? I'm not seeing the connection.
I also dunno how a company can make cheap products and hide pollution for 10-20 years.
And you deal with this by using the bankruptcy estate to create medical and litigation funds for the survivors - basically turning the victims into creditors of the bankrupt en y - like they did with asbestos corporations.
But I never said there should be limited govt oversight, so I don't see the relevance of any of this.
I was speaking more to Parker than to you specifically, sorry, could have made that more clear.
Burning coal, or mining it for that matter, usually leaves some nasty heavy metals that aren't really all that visibly apparent. Trace carcinigens, radiation, etc, all are things that don't really show up in the environment as readily as say, a burning river.
All of this though still fails to address the pollution itself. What happens if the money available is insufficient to clean it up or even mildly remediate it? Who do we sue then?
"usually leaves some nasty heavy metals"
always
cadmium, methyl mercury, etc.
And then there is the lakes and/or mountains of coal ash that BigCoal has bullied/compromised EPA into not classifying coal ash as toxic (it's full of all of the above).
Clean Coal is a huge lie
"usually leaves some nasty heavy metals"
always
cadmium, methyl mercury, etc.
And then there are the lakes and/or mountains of coal ash that BigCoal has bullied/compromised EPA into not classifying as toxic (it's full of all of the above).
Clean Coal is a huge lie
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-12-2011 at 03:10 PM.
lol Ron Paul
Ron Paul is spot on again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
